IAP Political Forum
January 07, 2009, 11:56:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Support IAP -- join "High Society" with less fuss. Click "paid subscriptions" from your profile.
 
   Home   Blog Forum   Help Search Chat Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: GOP candidates; "Don't campaign for me bro".  (Read 431 times)
freethinker
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +110/-217
Posts: 2,474



View Profile
« on: September 23, 2007, 01:51:38 PM »

 Giuliani, Rommny, Thompson and McCain are in an interesting position , they support Bushes occupation in Iraq but don't want to be associated with him.

http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2007/09/23/770559.html&cvqh=itn_bush
Logged

Yes we can ...and now we will...
bringbackwigs
Professional Post-Whore
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +158/-183
Posts: 3,115


Please refrain from taking my posts seriously


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2007, 01:54:25 PM »

Moved.
Logged

In religion and politics, people\\\\\\\\\'s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination. - Mark Twain

micfranklin
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +69/-79
Posts: 1,278


Jak is still not pleased...


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2007, 06:25:35 PM »

But they all voted for the war in the first place right?
Logged



Totino
High Society
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +105/-133
Posts: 1,381



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2007, 06:54:49 PM »

So did Clinton and other Democrats. So is she alligned with Bush now? (I think not BTW. But using the above logic she is)

Anyways, I think you're not being completely truthful about their positions on the war. But whatever you say Wink.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 06:56:46 PM by Totino » Logged



\\\"Since you\\\'re going to loose everything anyway when you die, you might as well get rid of it now\\\"

\\\"All creations, including god, originate in the mind\\\"
micfranklin
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +69/-79
Posts: 1,278


Jak is still not pleased...


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2007, 07:02:19 PM »

Not every Dem voted for the war either, most likely they're embarrassed by Bush but just want the war to end.
Logged



Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +216/-216
Posts: 4,190


"You do not speak for the rest"


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2007, 04:18:30 AM »

Bush has a low approval rating, which means the majority of the country doesn't like him. Why in God's name would ANYone want to assign their name to an anchor like that?
Logged

Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky

... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
jpn of Seattle
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +242/-234
Posts: 2,093



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2007, 07:11:46 PM »

A favorite misinformation tactic is to claim that Clinton and other Democrats "voted for the war." "In fact, after being mislead along with the rest of America about the state of Hussein's threat to our security, they voted to give Bush the power to threaten Hussein with action if he didn't comply with U.N. mandates.
And it worked. Hussein allowed U.N. inspectors back into the country. They had to be told to leave just prior to our invation. The U.N. inspectors were correct in their reports that they could not verify that Iraq had any NBC weapons capabilities.

Also, many Democrats voted against the resolution anyway. Others, like Obama, were not in Congress but openly spoke out against the invasion prior to it.
Logged

What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
Totino
High Society
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +105/-133
Posts: 1,381



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2007, 07:24:40 PM »

Wow jpn, you really are a bot eh?
After misleading?

The Clintons, Reid, Pelosi, and MANY other Democrats all claimed Saddam was a nuclear threat before Bush even got into office. The reality is they had those preceptions before Bush even said a word. So seriously grow up and open your eyes.
Logged



\\\"Since you\\\'re going to loose everything anyway when you die, you might as well get rid of it now\\\"

\\\"All creations, including god, originate in the mind\\\"
jpn of Seattle
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +242/-234
Posts: 2,093



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007, 07:29:54 PM »

Wow jpn, you really are a bot eh?
After misleading?

The Clintons, Reid, Pelosi, and MANY other Democrats all claimed Saddam was a nuclear threat before Bush even got into office. The reality is they had those preceptions before Bush even said a word. So seriously grow up and open your eyes.

He DID have WMD in earlier years--he certainly had gas, just ask the Kurds. But did he have a strike capability in 2003 that seriously put the United States in grave danger? That was the question, and the White House assured us that the answer was yes.

As far as being a "bot", I could call you names too, but I don't think that would improve my argument at all. In fact, I think it weakens and cheapens it. Let's try to stick to facts, or at least to our opinions, okay?
Logged

What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
Totino
High Society
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +105/-133
Posts: 1,381



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2007, 07:37:12 PM »

I stated the facts, and you just danced around them.

We went with the information avaliable, and what his predecessor (Senor Clinton) said.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

Sandy Berger: "He WILL rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction"

Boy look at that. HE WILL rebuild the arsenal? Seems like the Democrats made it very clear Saddam was working on WMDs and was a threat that needed to be taken out.

The year was 2002, just one year before the invasion. And what did Pelosi say? "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons".
Would you like a mad man having chemical and biological weapons?

October of 2002, NOT EVEN A YEAR BEFORE THE INVASION. Jay Rockefeller stated "There is UNMISTAKEABLE evidence that Saddam Hussein is working agressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years"

These people. These DEMOCRATS, went off of their own information and made these statements about nukes.

Watch the video. There are PLENTY more quotes from 2002 that support that. I'll leave you of your own will to look at those.

Now you get mad that I call you a bot. But come on man, what do you think you sound like? I'm clearly stating the facts here, you keep coming up with bullocks responses.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 07:47:38 PM by Totino » Logged



\\\"Since you\\\'re going to loose everything anyway when you die, you might as well get rid of it now\\\"

\\\"All creations, including god, originate in the mind\\\"
jpn of Seattle
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +242/-234
Posts: 2,093



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2007, 08:09:09 PM »

You try SO hard to hang the noose of Iraq around Democratic necks. Do you really think that any other person on the planet would have responded to 9/11 with a panicked and irrational and bungled attack on a totally unrelated third country?

Attacking Afghanistan was sane. Invading Iraq was insane. Some of the Congressional Democrats voted in support of the resolution, yes. Some thought that Hussein had WMD, yes. But would they have invaded Iraq?

No. President Gore wouldn't have. He was against the war before the invasion. So was Obama. So were many Democrats.

Would anyone other than the Neocons have decided they just HAD to invade Iraq right at that moment, while we were trying to win a war in Afghanistan?
Would any other administration have deliberately pressured the intelligence agencies into finding what the White House so explicitly made sure they wanted them to find?

Iraq is the worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam. In terms of strategic interests, it may turn out to be worse than VN. I understand your trying to pretend that Democrats should equally share the blame.

Sorry. It's Bush's war. It's the Neocons' war. It's the Republicans' war (they're the ones filibustering all attempts to end it, remember?).

It's not the Democrats' war.
Logged

What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
Totino
High Society
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +105/-133
Posts: 1,381



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2007, 08:19:56 PM »

Wow, you dance around don't you?

It isn't the Democrats war? Really? Is Bush a dictator? Was he somehow able to override a vote from Congress that said "We don't want a war"?
No he doesn't have that power. And the majority of congress didn't say "We don't want a war".

Jpn, you really can't say what Gore, or any other Democrat for that matter would have done. You're simply stating your opinion.
And I'm sure, plenty of Democrats NOW say "I wish we never would have gone into Iraq". It's very easy to say what you would have or would not have done after the fact. I'd like to go back to yesterday so I can pick the lotto numbers: 5, 9, 13, 19, 23 and 25. It's the same deal here. Now that you know the outcome, it's easy to state what you would have done. But the reality is this war was supported by BOTH SIDES.

I'm trying to pretend Democrats are to blame? LOOK AT THE VOTES. LOOK AT THE GOD DAMNED VOTES. You can blame Bush all you want. But the reality is Bush would have had no approval to go to war had Democrats all voted no. So you can remain partisan like you're doing now. Or you can drop your partisan act and admit that both sides have stake in this.

I would say Bush is more so to blame as he was the driving force behind the war. But to deny the existance of the role of the Democrats is PURE bias.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 08:31:26 PM by Totino » Logged



\\\"Since you\\\'re going to loose everything anyway when you die, you might as well get rid of it now\\\"

\\\"All creations, including god, originate in the mind\\\"
jpn of Seattle
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +242/-234
Posts: 2,093



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2007, 08:36:49 PM »

You're not claiming that you are not partisan, are you?
Logged

What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
Totino
High Society
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +105/-133
Posts: 1,381



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2007, 08:41:20 PM »

I'll admit that the majority of the time I side with conservatives (Bush isn't a conservative btw, and I'll gladly call him out on NUMEROUS issues).

If you'll admit that I'm right here, name another issue and I'll see about siding with you on it Wink.
Logged



\\\"Since you\\\'re going to loose everything anyway when you die, you might as well get rid of it now\\\"

\\\"All creations, including god, originate in the mind\\\"
jpn of Seattle
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +242/-234
Posts: 2,093



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2007, 09:20:01 PM »

Admit that you're right about exactly what? That Democrats and Republicans are equally culpable for the Republican disaster in Iraq?

Not likely...
Logged

What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.261 seconds with 25 queries.